Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee [Part 2], , 1:34:58 to 1:50:55
The Race Discrimination Commissioner provides updates on the National Anti-Racism Framework and definitions of antisemitism.
Topics: Human rights, Social cohesion, Antisemitism
Speakers: Senator Mehreen Faruqi, Giridharan Sivaraman, Senator Nita Green, Speaker 13, Unknown Speaker
>> It's it's evening. It's 8:30 almost. Thanks. Hi. Good evening, Commissioner. >> Um, Commissioner, as you know, at every estimate since um the National Anti-Racism Framework was completed and delivered to the government, I've asked you what the government has actually done with it. So, almost two years on, I will repeat some of those questions. So, please excuse me. Has the government now after two years formally responded to the national anti-racism framework and its 63 recommendations or is it still sitting in some government shelf
>> Senator um thanks for the question. The the government itself hasn't um yet responded. Um there has been responses from government departments. Mhm. >> Um so when you say government, if it's government departments, I can tell you about some of those responses. in the interest of progressing the work the really important work under the national anti-racism framework and um having not had a response from government we are going to convene a national anti-racism task force ourselves >> and we've written to uh key stakeholders who would form part of that task force and we also and amongst those we wrote to the attorney general's department and we did receive a response from the attorney general's department supporting the formation of the task force and providing some feedback on the terms of reference and the parameters of the >> task force. >> Mhm. >> So in that sense that's supportive. Um >> and we've written to some other government departments and got positive feedback as well. Uh the department of infrastructure in particular. >> Mhm. Um so I would say in that sense there is some response um within departments but certainly not from not from the minister or or the three ministers really that are involved with the work as of yet.
>> Okay. So that is one of the recommendations of out of the 63 recommendations that you have decided to go ahead yourself. Is that being funded by government? Do you have the funds for that? Will you use current funding or just
>> No. No. We are
>> nothing.
>> We're redirecting our own funds. um that we have well it is government funded in the sense that all of the money comes from but it's not a specific allocation it's we're redirecting money that we've already been >> um given and and I should just make clear you're right it is only one recommendation but it was always the critical one because >> we we knew that the framework was broad in its scope and bold in its ambition and the purpose of the task force was to identify which recommendations to move with as a matter of priority uh for example ones that align with the uh the two envoys against anti-semitism and phobia, ones that may align with findings that will come out of the parliamentary inquiry into racism towards first peoples or the Royal Commission into anti-semitism and social cohesion. So in that sense, it's it's one, but it's a critical one and that's why we're moving on it.
>> Yeah. But despite all of those things that have happened in the last 2 years, the 63 recommendations still stand as recommendations that are needed to tackle systemic racism in this country. Right.
>> Yes, absolutely.
>> And none of them at the moment have received a response from the government itself. >> No. Um, since last estimates hearing in May, have you met with the prime minister, the attorney general, or any other minister specifically on implementing the national anti-racism framework?
>> I've never met with the prime minister, but um I have met with ministers uh Roland, McCarthy, and Ali. >> About progressing the national interracial framework.
>> And do you know why it's not being
Um what I've been told is it it's still under consideration.
>> Okay. And have you received any indication about when there will be a
>> Um not a clear indication in terms of timing. Senator
>> Mhm. Um and um Commissioner, what are the consequences of two years having gone by without implementing any of the really important recommendations of the National Anti-Racism Framework? What do you see as the consequences of that?
>> It's um we think that implementing the framework would would go some way towards creating a society where we can all live with equity, dignity, and respect. We've seen horrific racist violence in the last two years. Incredibly horrific. And when I think about, for example, the massacre at Bondi and what happened there, we don't know if any one thing might have stopped that from happening. But we know that the the two the alleged perpetrators, at least one went to school here. They both would have had jobs. And those are two touch points at which that person who went on a pathway to hate to a hateful hateful outcome may have been diverted from that pathway of hate. >> And so there is opportunity to to build racial literacy to improve understanding and to build that equity, dignity, and respect we want in our society. And our framework provides the opportunity to do
Minister, I just want to ask you, you've heard the commissioner talk about the consequences of two years of this framework sitting there. Why hasn't the government responded to the framework?
>> Well, Senator, um, a couple of things. Um, uh, I don't think it's accurate to say that it's just been sitting there. there's um uh no requirement for the government to respond to the report but nevertheless it has been guiding policy decisions and policy development uh and there has been a number of things that the government has progressed um uh we're taking a multiaceted approach over um several portfolios um but some of the things that we've progressed is further funding to the commission um for a number of projects a review of the Australian curriculum to embed anti-racism principles. I can take you through the rest of the list, but I think the key point that you um are seeking to understand is that we are still considering the recommendations.
>> When will you actually respond to the recommendations? You heard the commissioner say racism has been rising in the last two years. You know, the commissioner gave a horrific example, but there's racism like, you know, Muslim women's hijabs being torn off. There's anti-migrant rallies. Um there was huge one just last weekend. Um there was some uh one on the public transport who called a 13-year-old girl an immigrant mut. These are just just the tip of the iceberg. So like why would you not tackle racist racism systematically as the framework recommends? Like there is zero recommendation of the framework that you have implemented. Why not? What are you waiting for?
Um, Senator, I I really can't add to my previous answer other than to reiterate to you what I've said to you before is that we are considering the recommendations of the NA National Anti-Racism Framework um and we are progressing work um to address um uh racism uh in a number of ways and I think the um uh department can take you through some of that work that we're doing but um to say that we're not taking any action is not true. No action
from the framework, but I come back to you, Commissioner. Um, the commission's change the system, change the story campaign makes clear that tackling workplace racism requires leadership and institutional responsibility, not simply expecting individual individuals experiencing racism to deal with themsel deal with it themselves. Do you think parliament as a workplace should be setting the standard on anti-racism?
It is very important for leaders whether they be in politics, business or civil society to to engage in in behaviors that they want people to um follow and the behaviors that should be reflected in the rest of society. Um that is something I've said previously. People look to leaders for guidance and so in that sense is very important for parliamentarians and others to um to model anti-racist behaviors. And that's why one of the recommendations in the national anti-racism framework is actually specifically anti-racism training for parliamentarians and standards to be set in parliament.
>> Do you think that should be mandatory that anti-racism training for parliamentarians and senior staff?
>> It is one of the recommendations in the framework.
>> Yep. Um I have a question a couple more questions for the minister on this topic but I just want to clarify with you first commissioner. There was reporting in August this year um that highlighted that you had said that someone very senior in government had told you to stop talking about racism because you're disrupting the social cohesion. Was that accurate reporting?
>> Yes.
>> Yeah. Uh Minister, do you are you aware of who asked the commissioner to do that? Which senior very which very senior person in government? Um, do you think it is responsible for that very senior person to say to a race discrimination commissioner to stop talking about racism because you're disrupting social cohesion?
again, I'm I'm here representing the attorney general and I seek to speak on her behalf. I think um the attorney general's view is that there's no place for racism in Australian society and any form of hatred or discrimination um uh is fully condemned. Um I don't know the context of that commentary or the um conversation. I I I have no nothing in front of me about it and um I just uh will be very cautious in how I respond. Um uh the attorney general's view is that no matter anyone's race or religion, they should be able to enjoy life in Australia without prejudice or discrimination.
>> Minister, you don't need a context for that. The commissioner has just said the reporting was accurate and a senior very sen someone very senior in government told the commissioner to stop talking about racism because you're disrupting the social cohesion. Do you agree that the commissioner should stop talking
about racism? I'm not going to know. So, Senator,
>> Minister, you're here to answer our questions. It's a very straightforward question.
>> To hear my answer, you can you give me the call. Um, I'm not going to add to my previous answer. Um, I've reiterated the position of the attorney general in relation to the um to racism and to the work of the commission. Um, and um I'm not going to add to um any of that other
commentary. Minister, does your government believe that we should stop talking about racism?
>> Well, that is not the position of the government. I have talked about racism this evening and it also doesn't support um it's not borne out in the facts with what the government has done um to um fund the commission um to not only uh develop um work in this space but um uh the new anti-racism campaign funded by the government is a very clear example of the government seeking to talk to this talk about this issue to
Australians. Could you make a commitment today to talk to this very senior person who had asked the commissioner to stop talking about racism and and maybe probably give them some anti-racism Uh I just have a few more questions uh for you, Minister, uh and then I'll finish. Chair, >> thank you. Uh, Minister, in a recent New South Wales Supreme Court case, Justice Fagan found that the IH formulation of anti-semitism does not reflect the established usage and understanding of anti-semitism in Australia. Uh, and said that it is so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to an ordinary, reasonably informed Australian. Has the government reviewed its adoption of the IH definition in light of that judgment?
>> Uh, Senator, you'll have to um bear with me. The context of that I don't think is relevant to the Australian Human Rights Commission. I've got information um in front of me about the government's funding of the commission. Um I can get some more information for you. [clears throat] I I otherwise I can take
that on notice. It is a question about I guess racism and the definition of a certain type of racism which a judge has said um is does not reflect the established usage and understanding of anti-semitism. you can't answer that question.
>> No Senator, what I'm saying to you is I'm I will seek to get information for you. If I can do that before the end of this session, I will come back to you.
>> Okay. So I guess my question is has the government reviewed its adoption of the IH definition? Um and also Justice Fagan warned that using the label anti-semitic criticism of Israel or Zionism can unfairly harm people and risks undermining the seriousness of genuine anti-semitism. And I just want a qu an answer from your government whether the government accepts that concern. And if they do, why does the government still think it is appropriate to continue using and promoting that definition?
>> Thank you. I will ask officials to respond because I think there's a more formal um response to that. Um and I if there's anything I can get for you from the minister, I will come back to you,
Uh, Senator, what I would just say is that I understand that that um particular statement um by the judge was made in a specific criminal case uh which uh isn't necessarily a commentary on the definition in in all
Um, sorry, just one quick question for you, Commissioner. I just since the minister has didn't know about or didn't want to comment on the very senior person in government who asked you to stop talking about racism, are you willing to tell us who that was?
>> Senator, it's important for me to maintain relationships with uh government and everyone that I work with. So, how many
>> Yeah, I I don't want to force you. I I I do understand that. Um and just sorry just coming back to the commentary uh that you were saying on the IH definition like what the judge said was entirely the commentary on IH definition. So I'm not sure how it's not
relevant. Uh it it was in a criminal matter as I understand it which is uh I mean we can't comment or give an opinion on a statement by a judge u but it was specific to a criminal case.
>> Yeah. But it was very specific to the IH definition more broadly. I don't know if you've read the judgment of Judge Fagan of Justice Fagan or not.
>> I have seen reporting and aspects of that judgment.
>> Okay. Yeah. That's fine.